New Delhi: The Supreme Court Tuesday said it will only interpret the Constitution while dealing with the Presidential reference on whether the court could impose timelines for governors and the President to deal with bills passed by state assemblies.
The remark by a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai came when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said if senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for parties opposing the reference, is going to rely on examples of constitutional provisions which concerned Andhra Pradesh, among others, then he needs to file a reply, as he has not argued on those aspects.
Mehta told a bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, “If they (Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments) are going to rely on examples of Andhra Pradesh, etc, we would like to file a reply on this. Since we need to show how the Constitution was taken on a joyride since its inception… let us see if we want to travel down that dirty path.”
CJI Gavai told Mehta, “We are not going into individual instances, whether it’s Andhra Pradesh or Telangana or Karnataka, but we will only interpret the provisions of the Constitution. Nothing else.”
Singhvi resumed his argument on the sixth day of hearing on the Presidential reference and summarised what “falling through” of bills means.
Giving different scenarios, a bill “falls through”, Singhvi said in one instance, when the state assembly, which has been asked by the governor to reconsider it after it is returned in exercise of powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, “may not want to send it back, may not want to pass it, may change its policy, the bill naturally falls through.”
The CJI asked Singhvi what would happen if the governor decides to withhold the bill and does not send it back to the assembly.
Singhvi replied, “If that happens, then all this sending back to the assembly does not happen. Earlier verdicts said the bill falls through unless the first proviso in Article 200 is followed (which requires the bill to be sent back to the assembly).”
August 28, the top court said the term ‘as soon as possible’ used in Article 200 of the Constitution in deciding the fate of bills will serve no practical purpose if governors are allowed to withhold consent for “eternity.”
The observation came as the Centre submitted that state governments cannot invoke writ jurisdiction in moving the apex court against the actions of the President and the governor in dealing with the bills passed by state assemblies for violation of fundamental rights.
Article 200 provides for the powers of the governor regarding bills passed by the state legislature, allowing them to either assent to the bill, withhold assent, return the bill for reconsideration or reserve the bill for the consideration of the President.
The first proviso of Article 200 says the governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the bill for assent, return the bill, if it is not a Money Bill, to the house for reconsideration and shall not withhold the consent after the assembly reconsiders and sends it back to him.
August 26, the top court wondered whether the court should sit powerless if a governor delays assent to bills indefinitely and if the constitutional functionary’s independent power to withhold a bill would mean that even money bills could be blocked.
The court raised the questions after some BJP-ruled states defended the autonomy of governors and the President in assenting to bills passed by a legislature, submitting that “assent to a law cannot be given by a court.”
The state governments also contended that the judiciary could not be a panacea for every disease.
In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether judicial orders could impose timelines for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies.
PTI
